The Murderers Benefitting From their Victims Estates - Literature review Example

Running Header: LITERATURE Review of Literature Tina West Kaplan CJ490: Research Methods Janette Nichols December 20, Abstract Murderers Benefitting From their Victims’ Estates Introduction Across the world, there are rising cases of murder. An emerging trend in this respect involves the slaughter of victims with the sole intention of inheriting or somehow benefiting from their estate(s). It is common for the murderers and victims in such cases to be close or distant relations. Whenever a murderer is arrested and charged for murder with the intention of benefitting from the deceased’s estate, the common defense applied is insanity or mental incompetence. In some cases, courts establish, on technical grounds, that the murderers are not guilty, to the delight of the latter. The murderers in this respect retain the rights to enjoy the wealth of their victims with almost no regrets. However, it may be argued that this should never be the case considering that murderers are guilty irrespective of legal technicalities that may be raised in the course of judicial proceedings. Very little study has been conducted regarding the murders benefiting from their victims’ properties. It is this gap that this study seeks to fulfill. Hypotheses H0: Murderers who kill their victims with the intention of benefiting from victims’ estates should not be granted the right to partake of such properties. H1: Murderers who kill their victims with the intention of benefiting from victims’ estates should be granted the right to partake of such properties. Specific objectives 1. To establish the prevalence of murder cases for the purposes of inheriting victims’ properties/estates 2. To establish the motives/intentions behind such murders 3. To establish the defenses applied in such murder cases 4. To establish reasons that warrant or warrant not murderers to benefit from their victims’ estates. Review of Literature Defenses to crime generally admit insanity as sufficient grounds to relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility in many cases in which it is applied by the defense. The court systems have generated insanity tests to determine if there is criminal responsibility by the defendant. Three of these tests have been in use for a considerable period. The tests include M’Naghten, irresistible impulse, and substantial capacity tests. The M’Naghten test measures the defendant’s cognitive abilities and the possibility that such abilities could or could not enable making the right decision in terms of the crime. Irresistible impulse test relies on willingness to commit crime irrespective of cognition and any chance that a severe disease caused certain mental incapacitation on the defendant’s decision making. Substantive capacity test relies on the threshold of mental incapacitation, needs not be total incapacitation at the time the crime was committed (O’Connor, 2010). These crime liability tests are used to determine the state of mind of the defendant and are arguably not conclusive for failure to detect the possibility of motivation to commit crimes from a beneficial perspective. Research on the shift of burden of crime responsibility shows that benefiting from a crime should change the analysis of tests such as those highlighted above. Mental illness research in advanced insanity defense makes recommendations explaining that the presence of a mental condition on the defendant should not impede criminal responsibility. Based on the assumption that mental illness opens a window of opportunity for the defense team to take advantage of the apparent defense thereon, fairness dictates that such defendants should be handled with a special consideration to that effect. Fairness does not, however, imply that the victims of the crime become automatic losers in that case. To make a judgment based on the fairness threshold must therefore determine whether or not the mentally ill defendant benefitted from the crime. In such a benefit analysis, findings should add weight to the results of the other tests to facilitate fairness to the crime victims who stand to lose if mental illness is merely used as a sufficient defense without benefit considerations. In the event that it can be demonstrated that the defendant benefited from the commission of a crime, the application of mental illness as a sufficient defense will amount to the contradiction to the intentions of justice in various respects. That mental illness defies deterrence and retribution application of law, the infusion of certain benefits by the defendant from the crime may dilute this concept in law that considers justice and equity. In terms of the compromise in such a case involving deterrence, justice will not be served because a chance of occurrence in similar crimes is a significant likelihood as motivated by benefit. Retribution on behalf of the victim will not be achieved based on the fairness criteria that consider both the offender and the offended (Brodsky & Bursztajn, 1991). It is sometimes difficult to demonstrate the standards of proof in defense of a mental case, which complicates the reliability of the defense. In many cases, it may not be directly possible and practical to demonstrate accurately the requirements of basic proof in mental illness as a defense. It is almost certainly a requirement that medical intervention is sought for the translation of the mental status of a defendant to demonstrate the technical medical nexus that the defense has in seeking a remedy. However, it is not necessarily complex to enumerate the benefit that the defendant could be obtaining at the expense of the victim. Although these complexities exist in the demonstration prepared by the defense, there is little effort needed to illustrate the possibility of benefit as a motivation of the mentally ill defendant partaking in a crime. The most affected element of legal application in the determination of the motivation may however not be as elaborate as it sounds because the principle of free will may obscure such a consideration (Trowbridge, 2005). Such a consideration is highlighted in the cost-benefit analysis that employs the premise that a defense on the principle of mens rea must be conducted on the basis of avoidance marginal cost against commission marginal cost. The determination of the criminal responsibility based on this cost balance analysis should be insightful enough to detect any shift in benefit by the defendant for use in exoneration or implication (Candeub, 2009). The benefit analysis will therefore be applicable in determining the possibility that the mentally ill defendant could have contributed to the issue of criminal liability that affects the victims, from the point of view that the illness is not a defense on its own. Research Design In order to conduct the study, both primary and secondary data will be used. To obtain secondary data, a literature review will be performed to gain an insight into the nature of the problem. The study will mainly rely on reliable secondary sources, including newspapers, books, court cases, journals and websites to establish the extent to which murders are committed for the purposes of inheritance in the society. Primary data will be relied on mainly since the subject has not been studied before which means that there is very limited literature in respect of the same. Primary data will be collected through questionnaires posted to a sample of victims’ close relatives. The questionnaires will mainly seek to establish the relevance or irrelevance of rewarding murderers with their victims’ properties. Owing to the global nature of the problem, the research will be limited to xxx state of the United States of America. The study will comply to ethical standards in that the study will be conducted objectively, where necessary protecting the identities of those concerned. The sources from which data is obtained will be credited appropriately and permissions for duplication of materials sought where necessary. Sampling Data Collection References Brodsky, A. & Bursztajn, H. (1991) “Competence and Insanity,” The Mental Health Professional and the Legal System, 131:181-186 Candeub, A. (2009) “An Economic Theory of Criminal Excuse,” Boston College Law Review, 50(1):87-137 Maxfield, M. & Babbie, E. (2009). Basics of Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. O’Connor, T. (2010) “Defenses to Crime” Retrieved 3 January, 2012 http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3010/3010lect04.htm Trowbridge, B. (2005) “Waiting List and Recent Cases Give Advantages to Defendants Court-Ordered for State Hospital Evaluations,” Washington Criminal Defense, 19(2): 1-15 Read More